Cross-over in specs?

Talon_Sr

Hermitism wrote: »

He is referring to the woofers in the speakers, not a separate powered subwoofer.

Yep, I see that now, sorry for the mis-reading.

WLDock

Yeah, if you are running good sized wire then just replacing the jumpers is about all that is worth it. If for some reason you are using small guage wire and wanted to bi-wire then two small wires will offer lower resistance vs. one small wire. However, just use good quality wire of a decent gauge and not worry about it. The dynamic power reserve will be there for the channels that are in use due to them feeding from the same power supply.

F1nut

What if the signal source is sent through hi and lo pass filters that were in the receiver and then amplified discretely and separately by the amplifier prior to being sent to the speakers hi inputs and low inputs.

The only crossover point I'm aware of is used for the sub.

IOW, the receiver has its own electrical XO which is enabled only when the Bi-amp option is selected.

It does? Well, pull out the speaker crossovers and see how that works.

Dennis Gardner

Talon_Sr wrote: »

Question about the block diagram of that link: What if the signal source is sent through hi and lo pass filters that were in the receiver and then amplified discretely and separately by the amplifier prior to being sent to the speakers hi inputs and low inputs. Would this not qualify as biamping? IOW, the receiver has its own electrical XO which is enabled only when the Bi-amp option is selected. Is this plausible?

Short answer is yes, that is technically a vertical bi-amp setup if the speaker's crossover were disabled as Jesse suggests, but is still not a true dual amp setup as bi-amp suggests. I don't know of any consumer model that has this feature, but you are getting some of the theory down now, just not why it doesn't make enough difference to try it with a multi channel receiver.

Talon_Sr

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

If your receiver is the 1523 in your signature........In theory, it works. In reality your power supply admittedly is only rated on the back of your amp to pull 330 watts of electricity, so it can't produce the 9x135 unless it is pulling at least 1215 watts from the electrical service at the wall.

Magic is the only way for a power supply to produce 4 times as much power as it takes as no power supply is 400% efficient.

Shouldn't you also consider the "Duty Cycle" which for compressed rock music is about 40%. WPC x #channels driven x Duty Cycle = AC Power? This would only require about 486 watts from the outlet. And with the D3 amps, the efficiency is even higher.

Talon_Sr

What I would like to see is a receiver that offers totally independent amplification of specified frequency ranges set internally by an active XO within the pre-amp of the receiver. The speaker set-up calibration routine would determine the various cross-over points of different speakers that are capable of bi-amping and when the plates are removed, the internal passive XOs of the speaker are matched by the output of the receiver. If that makes any sense. I mean why is it so hard for people to believe that this is possible. Why do many feel that the only way you can do this is by physically separate amps? Saying that you MUST use two physically distinct and enclosed amps, is like saying that these amps must be located in separate houses and not together in your living room. With cooler and more efficient amplifying and solid-state strategies, it is very likely that we will see this in the near future.

Talon_Sr

F1nut wrote: »

The only crossover point I'm aware of is used for the sub.



It does? Well, pull out the speaker crossovers and see how that works.

F1, that was a "what if" scenario. And hence, the "Is that plausible" question. I'm taking it, that you'd say "no" to that question?

Talon_Sr

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

If your receiver is the 1523 in your signature........In theory, it works. In reality your power supply admittedly is only rated on the back of your amp to pull 330 watts of electricity, so it can't produce the 9x135 unless it is pulling at least 1215 watts from the electrical service at the wall.

Magic is the only way for a power supply to produce 4 times as much power as it takes as no power supply is 400% efficient.

The 330 watts is Standby power drawn when the receiver is not in use. At least, that's what I read it as.

Dennis Gardner

Asking speaker makers to work in unison with receiver makers to change the fundamentals of mass produced consumer items is a long shot. Doing so would kill too many speakers if you could simply switch off all their safety features so that active crossovers could be used. Just the number of speakers I see on the used market being sold as not working, that have the brass straps removed is proof enough of the understanding of the public in general.Their isn't a need in the market to give consumers that don't know what they are doing that type of free reign with gear and have to warranty the issues.

The items that you are asking for are available in higher end gear that can be set up by dealers and installation experts. Allowing crossovers to be set at will for all speakers is asking for poor sound for most people. An AVR setup is already difficult enough.

BTW, I do have a couple sets of bi ampable speakers that I run from ADS (L1230 and L1290) that have the defeat features you are speaking of that disconnect the crossovers so that active units can be used, and they sound better with the factory crossovers in place, and yes I have run them both ways.

Dennis Gardner

Talon_Sr wrote: »

The 330 watts is Standby power drawn when the receiver is not in use. At least, that's what I read it as.

I don't understand it that way, I assumed that 330 is full power consumption and that is pretty impressive to reach a 760 watts total all channels driven(per Pioneer spec sheet). This puts the 135 wpc number down to 85wpc in multi channel mode. Still impressive numbers on a nice receiver.

Standby is .1 watt with HDMI control off.

F1nut

Talon_Sr wrote: »

F1, that was a "what if" scenario. And hence, the "Is that plausible" question. I'm taking it, that you'd say "no" to that question?

I see. In that case I suppose so, but you'll never see it.

F1nut

The 330 watts is Standby power drawn when the receiver is not in use. At least, that's what I read it as.

That is the maximum draw. As Dennis stated, standby is .1 watt.

tonyb

Talon_Sr wrote: »

One speaker effectively becomes two within the same enclosure. Is this not correct?

Every speaker deals with different frequencies differently due to design, quality and crossover points. The crossover is essentially a traffic cop of frequencies. Without a separate crossover and amplification, and removing the passive crossover, your limited to how much you can manipulate the frequencies.

That said, ice amps.....such as the ones in your Pioneer receiver tend to hold their power better in all channels driven over their A/B amped receiver counterparts. Still, bi-amping with such is still a waste. Your speakers are easy to drive and an easy load for the Pioneer. The top portion of your speaker probably uses less than 15 watts, if you dedicate a whole channel to that the unused power is not available to the rest of the speaker.

From what I gather, your trying to turn your speakers into something they are not, or your unhappy with them for some reason. Maybe an explanation of the end goal would help us help you.

WLDock

Talon_Sr wrote: »

What I would like to see is a receiver that offers totally independent amplification of specified frequency ranges set internally by an active XO within the pre-amp of the receiver. The speaker set-up calibration routine would determine the various cross-over points of different speakers that are capable of bi-amping and when the plates are removed, the internal passive XOs of the speaker are matched by the output of the receiver. If that makes any sense. I mean why is it so hard for people to believe that this is possible. Why do many feel that the only way you can do this is by physically separate amps? Saying that you MUST use two physically distinct and enclosed amps, is like saying that these amps must be located in separate houses and not together in your living room. With cooler and more efficient amplifying and solid-state strategies, it is very likely that we will see this in the near future.

Pioneer very well could have done something like this with the original ICEAmp flagship SC-09TX AVR at $7000...had they made speakers with passives one could disable. Rated at 140 watts x 10
This unit is about as robust AVR as one will find and has a two chassis design with isolation in the power supply to the channels. This is an AVR that might be able to pull off bi-amping if they had added a flexible crossover for all channels.


http://www.pioneerelectronics.ca/StaticFiles/POCEN/Files/Elite-AVC-Reference-Guide/file/30.html

Still, full active crossovers seem to be only used in high end system....this goes for home, pro, studio, and car audio. However, Pioneer has a midline and high end car audio deck with full 3-way and 4- way active crossovers that have powerful control features sets. They could easily add this to there top avr's but the need, understanding, and request is not there.

You want to get down and dirty with active filters? Move to a higher level of electronics and speakers and start reading the works of masterminds like LInkwitz, etc. http://www.linkwitzlab.com

WLDock

All you wanted to know about an active filters.

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm
http://www.edn.com/design/consumer/4414835/Improving-high-end-active-speaker-performance-using-digital-active-crossover-filters
http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro2_e.html
www.pteacoustics.com/.../the%20case%20for%20powered%20speakers.pdf
http://www.sherlab.com/index.htm?/filter/filter.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/198663-need-advice-designing-budget-active-speaker.html

Another open baffle speaker that uses active crossovers
http://www.emeraldphysics.com

Talon_Sr

I understand what all of you are saying about how different speaker makers have differently spec'd passive XOs built in. But I don't see why it is impossible to have the speaker calibration routine, through sonic feedback or user input, set the output frequency range for a particular channel that is intended to amplify a driver component of a given speaker in a bi-or even tri-amp setup. What do all the speaker makers do about their supplied internal xo circuits? The keep them in there at first as legacy features for all amps that do not have this feature and then are gradually phased out. "But what about Joe User who doesn't want to delve that deeply into his setup?" Then the speaker/amplifier setup routine has a default XO selection that he can accept during the calibration routine. "But what about people who currently have speakers that do have internal XOs that cannot be easily disabled?" In that case the calibration routine will skip the internal XO settings and use the speakers' filters.

Hey, I want to use the 4K upscalling feature that is available with my receiver, but I can't. Why? I don't have a TV that supports it. But I want to use the new technology. Too bad. I can't until I upgrade my TV to one that works with my receiver's abilities. Well the same thing applies here. Those who want to forego buying a separate external XO and separate external amps will just have to upgrade their system to accommodate the All-in-one solution. Listen, the same thing happened years ago with stereo equipment. "Haha, you have a receiver and I have a separate Tuner, pre-amp, and power amp." And for awhile that worked. Then receivers got better and cleaner to the point that they were on par if not exceeded the performance of the separates. It's evolution. I suspect it will be this way with al the esoteric external XOs everyone loves to drool over. Someday soon, in my lifetime, we will see it integrated into the Receiver.

tonyb

Most users of active external crossovers fall into 2 camps. One being the pro audio guys, the other being higher end guys. A receiver fits in neither of those categories so it's unlikely you'll see a rush to include what you want.

Todays receivers compared to todays separates, not on par in my book. Though the separates will cost ya some coinage but also allow you more flexibility in tailoring the sound.

Talon_Sr

In any event, we're starting to stray off the original topic (which I don't mind). I have learned a lot from you guys and I enjoy all of the input. I think I have a firmer grasp of what bi-amping is. Not only is there a distinction between bi-amping and bi-wiring, but then there are various methods of the former( passive bi-amping, passive-active bi-amping, and active bi-amping). It's dizzying to say the least. But fun. I love tech, always have and always will. Man, despite all his flaws, is a clever animal. He will find a way to make it work. If you asked someone, thirty years ago, that you would be able to plug in a mic hit a button and your receiver would determine the number of speakers you have, their distances from the mic, set their channel levels, EQ, standing wave, reverb, group delay, frequency range capabilities, and more, and do so by itself without human intervention, you would have been laughed at.

Anyway, thank you all for the discussion. Looking forward to more. I can tell you all have a passion for this and it makes me feel at home.

tonyb

Talon_Sr wrote: »

If you asked someone, thirty years ago, that you would be able to plug in a mic hit a button and your receiver would determine the number of speakers you have, their distances from the mic, set their channel levels, EQ, reverb, group delay, frequency range capabilities, and more, and do so by itself without human intervention, you would have been laughed at. .

Maybe so, but even with all that automation, it's still not without faults and still requires manual tweeking after the fact by us low life humans. Those software programs are meant as guidelines, not written in stone. You simply can't just use an automatic software in a receiver and let it be, not make additional adjustments.

Talon_Sr

I also understand there is a "need to tweak" sentiment. That will never change. But you would be able to do so in my vision. I understand too, that there is a natural phobia of automation. But perceived "faults" are subjective and even if a machine could calibrate itself perfectly according to industry standards, there will always be those who dislike it because it's "sterile", "not warm enough", "doesn't have my scent on it". It's all good. Tweak it and put your personal signature on it. That will still be an option.

Talon_Sr

WLDock wrote: »

All you wanted to know about an active filters.

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm
http://www.edn.com/design/consumer/4414835/Improving-high-end-active-speaker-performance-using-digital-active-crossover-filters
http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro2_e.html
www.pteacoustics.com/.../the%20case%20for%20powered%20speakers.pdf
http://www.sherlab.com/index.htm?/filter/filter.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/198663-need-advice-designing-budget-active-speaker.html

Another open baffle speaker that uses active crossovers
http://www.emeraldphysics.com

Thanks WLDock for those links and illustrations. I will pour over them.

Talon_Sr

DLDock, here's a quote from one of the articles you gave me.

"It may simply be a failure of imagination by manufacturers, or retailers, but it is just as likely to be the innate conservatism of audio buyers. We don't accept new ideas easily. despite the superficial gloss of monthly me-too improvements in the audio media, this is just a veneer of piecemeal improvements to existing technology. The most couture of the really-high-end uses technology from the 1930s!

The cheapness & cool-running of digital amplifiers offers the best opportunity to adopt active loudspeaker operation as the new hegemony. Equalization at line level, or in the digital domain, has to be more cost effective than lumps of glop on drive unit cones. "


I couldn't agree more. And I feel that DSP active filters can be utilized within the receiver itself. The speakers themselves do not have to carry the active XO.

tonyb

Talon_Sr wrote: »

The speakers themselves do not have to carry the active XO.

Well, yes they do...if the designer wants their speaker to portray a certain sound. If you want to tailor the sound yourself in that regard, there are speakers and active crossovers to do that with. However most in a home environment don't want to mess around with all that. That's the allure of a receiver to begin with. Also, a receiver being a compromised product to begin with, I doubt adding another chore to it would not bring anything noteworthy of quality to an active crossover. Think of a receiver as a Swiss army knife of audio, able to do lots of things but master of none.

Price points is what I'm getting at. Receivers are priced and built to accommodate what research dictates consumers will spend. The ones who do spend a lot of money on audio demand quality components. Again, a receiver doesn't fit into that scenario. Having one unit do even more will result in either higher prices, or poorer quality components.

Dennis Gardner

On a related side note, I am really surprised that HT speaker makers haven't jumped head first into the powered speaker market like the studio monitor/pro audio segment has. I really had a tough time trying to sell a passive cabinet to anyone in the past 5 years or so. They all wanted "powered speakers". With this move, we would have matched power amps sections that usually integrate bi-amping within themselves and upgradeable preamps like Anthem, Meridian, etc. could become the norm instead of disposable receivers.

Talon_Sr

Fast food mentality at work, DG

WLDock

Talon_Sr wrote: »

And I feel that DSP active filters can be utilized within the receiver itself. The speakers themselves do not have to carry the active XO.

What you ask for is already available in the car audio world. One such device(Among ohers) is the JBL MS8:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr51zXfy_L0

http://www.jbl.com/estore/jbl/us/products/MS-8/MS-8_JBL_US

It sets levels, crossover, time alignment, EQ, room correction, etc.

The DSP power is there but I think the home market may not be as receptive.....unless this is something that becomes a home theater system trend. Still, not sure what there is to gain using the amps in an AVR?

In the high end 2 Channel world...a guy might put together a 3-way active system with a class A amp on the tweeters, a tube amp on the midrange, and a class D amp on the midbass. might even use a DSP unit for active crossovers and room correction. At this level it makes so much more sense, IMP.

Talon_Sr

WLDock wrote: »

It sets levels, crossover, time alignment, EQ, room correction, etc.

The DSP power is there but I think the home market may not be as receptive.....unless this is something that becomes a home theater system trend. Still, not sure what there is to gain using the amps in an AVR?

Well how about space for one thing. All of my cubicles in my entertainment center are used. I have the Oppo, the Tivo, the Xbox and the AVR. Where would I have space for external XOs and Power amps? And they're bigger than the devices I already have taking up slots. It's basically the same reason people went to integrated amps and receivers years ago. Separates look cool, but what's the point if you can get good sound from something that takes up one third of the space?

F1nut

Well how about space for one thing.

That is another problem with what you want. AVR's are already packed full, so that means the AVR would have to be bigger yet and the better ones are very large as is.

WLDock

Well, I have no doubt it can be done. Look at the features in your AVR and other top units. There might be up to four transformers and 6-8 boards shoved in there. What's another couple of boards?( a hell of a lot actually)
It seems that market is forced to add more features every year to sell units. ...but if there were no sound improvements, I'm not sure how well it would be received. I mean, they already market the "Bi-amp capable" feature........

tonyb

How about you get a bigger stand for all your gear, problem solved.

Face it, there's not a lot of need out there for what your asking. Your basically looking for a way to mesh home audio with pro audio and those results usually equate to poor sound.